Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Marc Andressen - An hour and a half with Barck Obama
There is nothing better than a first-person account to attest to the character of an individual. This is from Marc Andreessen, one of the inventors of the Netscape browser. Thanks to laurajordan for the link!
An hour and a half with Barack Obama
- Mar 3, 2008
I've tried very hard to keep politics out of this blog -- despite nearly overpowering impulses to the contrary -- for two reasons: one, there's no reason to alienate people who don't share my political views, as wrong-headed as those people may clearly be; two, there's no reason to expect my opinion on political issues should be any more valid than any other reader of what, these days, passes for the New York Times.
That said, in light of the extraordinary events playing out around us right now in the runup to the presidential election, I would like to share with you a personal experience that I was lucky enough to have early last year.
Early in 2007, a friend of mine who is active in both high-tech and politics called me up and said, let's go see this first-term Senator, Barack Obama, who's ramping up to run for President.
And so we did -- my friend, my wife Laura, and me -- and we were able to meet privately with Senator Obama for an hour and a half.
The reason I think you may find this interesting is that our meeting in early 2007 was probably one of the last times Senator Obama was able to spend an hour and a half sitting down and talking with just about anyone -- so I think we got a solid look at what he's like up close, right before he entered the "bubble" within which all major presidential candidates, and presidents, must exist.
Let me get disclaimers out of the way: my only involvement with the Democratic presidential campaigns is as an individual donor -- after meeting with the Senator, my wife and I both contributed the maximum amount of "hard money" we could to the Obama campaign, less than $10,000 total for both the primary and the general election. On the other hand, we also donated to Mitt Romney's Republican primary effort -- conclude from that what you will.
I carried four distinct impressions away from our meeting with Senator Obama.
First, this is a normal guy.
I've spent time with a lot of politicians in the last 15 years. Most of them talk at you. Listening is not their strong suit -- in fact, many of them aren't even very good at faking it.
Senator Obama, in contrast, comes across as a normal human being, with a normal interaction style, and a normal level of interest in the people he's with and the world around him.
We were able to have an actual, honest-to-God conversation, back and forth, on a number of topics. In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics -- with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more. We also talked about a pretty wide range of other issues, including Silicon Valley and various political topics.
With most politicians, their curiosity ends once they find out how much money you can raise for them. Not so with Senator Obama -- this is a normal guy.
Second, this is a smart guy.
I bring this up for two reasons. One, Senator Obama's political opponents tend to try to paint him as some kind of lightweight, which he most definitely is not. Two, I think he's at or near the top of the scale of intelligence of anyone in political life today.
You can see how smart he is in his background -- for example, lecturer in constitutional law at University of Chicago; before that, president of the Harvard Law Review.
But it's also apparent when you interact with him that you're dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He's crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information -- smart.
Third, this is not a radical.
This is not some kind of liberal revolutionary who is intent on throwing everything up in the air and starting over.
Put the primary campaign speeches aside; take a look at his policy positions on any number of issues and what strikes you is how reasonable, moderate, and thoughtful they are.
And in person, that's exactly what he's like. There's no fire in the eyes to realize some utopian or revolutionary dream. Instead, what comes across -- in both his questions and his answers -- is calmness, reason, and judgment.
Fourth, this is the first credible post-Baby Boomer presidential candidate.
The Baby Boomers are best defined as the generation that came of age during the 1960's -- whose worldview and outlook was shaped by Vietnam plus the widespread social unrest and change that peaked in the late 1960's.
Post-Boomers are those of us, like me, who came of age in the 1970's or 1980's -- after Vietnam, after Nixon, after the "sexual revolution" and the cultural wars of the 1960's.
One of the reasons Senator Obama comes across as so fresh and different is that he's the first serious presidential candidate who isn't either from the World War II era (Reagan, Bush Sr, Dole, and even McCain, who was born in 1936) or from the Baby Boomer generation (Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and George W. Bush).
He's a post-Boomer.
Most of the Boomers I know are still fixated on the 1960's in one way or another -- generally in how they think about social change, politics, and the government.
It's very clear when interacting with Senator Obama that he's totally focused on the world as it has existed since after the 1960's -- as am I, and as is practically everyone I know who's younger than 50.
What's the picture that emerges from these four impressions?
Smart, normal, curious, not radical, and post-Boomer.
If you were asking me to write a capsule description of what I would look for in the next President of the United States, that would be it.
Having met him and then having watched him for the last 12 months run one of the best-executed and cleanest major presidential campaigns in recent memory, I have no doubt that Senator Obama has the judgment, bearing, intellect, and high ethical standards to be an outstanding president -- completely aside from the movement that has formed around him, and in complete contradition to the silly assertions by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns that he's somehow not ready.
Before I close, let me share two specific things he said at the time -- early 2007 -- on the topic of whether he's ready.
We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive -- as a manager and leader of people?
He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action.
At the time, I wasn't sure what to make of his answer -- political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those?
Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win -- and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
This speaks well to the Senator's ability to run a campaign, but speaks even more to his ability to recruit and manage a top-notch group of campaign professionals and volunteers -- another key leadership characteristic. When you compare this to the awe-inspiring discord, infighting, and staff turnover within both the Clinton and McCain campaigns up to this point -- well, let's just say it's a very interesting data point.
We then asked, well, what about foreign policy -- should we be concerned that you just don't have much experience there?
He said, directly, two things.
First, he said, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.
Being a fan of blunt answers, I liked that one.
But then he made what I think is the really good point.
He said -- and I'm going to paraphrase a little here: think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.
He's got my vote.











Comments (59)
I spent forty-five minutes with Barack in March 2007 (with seven other people). I totally agree with Andreesen's assessment.
I also got the impression that Barack was supremely focused in the present, and comfortable with himself, and would be extremely difficult to throw off balance.
March 27, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
gaah! why can't we edit our typos?
March 27, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But did he look inside his suit?
We are told by luminaries, such a Lalo35adm on this very website that Obama is an "empty suit".
Did Andreesen, as smart as he is, ever bother to look inside the guys suit? Did he?
March 27, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine what it'll be like to have a really smart President again?
*pained sigh for the last 8 years, wistful sigh for the next 8*
March 28, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if we could deal with the shock, even though it'll be a very positive shock.
What the heck will Jon Stewart, David Letterman, etc., make fun of?
March 28, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marc Andreessen is no fool, and - unlike many other tech-types (I know - they've been my community for nearly 30 years), he strikes me as one who has a real sense of others. Also unlike many that fell during the bubble, his struggles with Netscape came directly as a result of his successes - they awoke Microsoft which then went onto to bludgeon Netscape with a combination of financial might and dirty tricks. Early on, Microsoft didn't even take the Internet seriously.
My point is - it would seem you can put a high value on Andreessen's read of just about anyone.
March 28, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a great letter of reference. I wish more people would read it.
March 28, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andreessen screwed up by taking the Netscape browser into a rewrite and they never came up for air. The "Joel On Software" blog uses this as a prime case for re-factoring over re-writing - everybody wants to start from scratch and "take out all the errors and bad planning" but forget that they introduce a whole new set of errors and bad planning in the new design, vs. a design that's been mostly debugged and is working. Netscape of course faced other market pressures, but their prime undoing was themselves.
This is a good analogy of what's flawed in Obama's "blank slate of politics" "changing the tone of Washington" approach (or however he says these things). There is no rewrite of politics in Washington, there is no starting over, there really isn't even a "honeymoon" for a new President. The same foes and causes who've been sniping for over a century, the same flawed allies who are with you until they're against you - that's what's there. Take what's working, debug what's not, and get out a 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 version as quickly as you can schedule - perhaps focusing on a debug version, then a minor feature update, and then a last consolidation release before trying to get a brand new moderately and reasonably advanced 3.0.
Everyone complained that XP wasn't that new, that it was basically the same as Win2K with a few bells and whistles. After Vista, I haven't heard that complaint much.
March 28, 2008 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since when is "changing the tone of politics" synonymous with creating a "blank slate"? If anything, "changing the tone" demands an acknowledgment of the way things are now and a willingness to engage with them.
I am not sure how you got from Andressen's assessment of the candidate ("This is not some kind of liberal revolutionary who is intent on throwing everything up in the air and starting over") to your caricature of Obama as either a Pol Pot "Year Zero" type, or a Colonel Kurtz Warrior-Poet.
Bizarre.
March 28, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Spolsky is a bit of a shill for MS and many of his more navel-gazing software philosophy diatribes are no more grounded in reality than Paul Graham's.
March 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I always thought - though I have enjoyed a FEW of Graham's observations, that largely, he fails to realize the idealized environment he was able to hatch his early venture from (which I never thought was ALL THAT impressive) is hardly available to the overwhelming majority of independents, and almost certainly constrained for those in a corporate environment where all your development has to be off site and unlike that which you are being paid for (ownership issues).
Some good observations, but hardly a model that most developers can expect to follow.
F* I'm in Ohio and just TRY and find true independents with enough prowess to work in conjunction with you (prior to the Web & OSS projects especially)... quite tough. The original Foxbase guys were helped by a situation similar to Graham and crew.
Desidero, I think, has the time line askew - Andreessen did not take Netscape into full rewrite - he had left the venture by the time that went any further than discussion. Also - a primary goal of the rewrite was to get a fair amount closer to true standards compliance especially as regards the holy grail of CSS implementation and DOM oriented solutions. Fact is - IE 4 almost totally rejected sound design principles as far as the web developer/designer was concerned (suddenly pages specified in percentages went all over the place wherein prior IE and Netscape they did not) and then with their ISP (here's some custom install discs for you, just refuse to 'support' Netscape) programs and merging the software to Windows BLUDGEONED Netscape. To think else wise is like believing Hillary is honest.
March 28, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read for yourself - Spolsky on Netscape
Marc left sometime in 1999. Spolsky was talking about 3 years lost in 2000. Somehow I think Marc was around somewhere in there.
March 28, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd second that.
March 28, 2008 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing that wonderful human interaction.
March 28, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies to both Marc and Barack for misspelling their names in the title. Embarrassing.....
March 28, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
***Astral166
Thank You for posting this. While personal opinions only go so far they can and do sometimes make an impact when someone like Marc Andreessen -- a credible, successful and respected public figure -- steps front and centre to state an opinion based on his personal experience. Meeting a person up close and personal is different.
While I have never met Obama in-person, Iam in complete agreement with Andreessen. I reached my conclusions by watching 20 debates, reading various transcripts, listening to interviews, and reading hundreds of articles including pro/con opinions. The more I learned about Obama the better I liked him.
I watched Obama's body language and his facial expressions, they are consistent with what he says. Not that Iam an expert which I'm not by any measure or means, but I use it to gage consistency. The more consistent a person is the more credible they are. More importantly Obama's words are consistent with his deeds. That gives Obama credibility.
Is Obama perfect? No
Do I agree with him 100% of the time? No
Do I like all of his policy proposals? No
Do I have doubts? No
Is Obama ready to be President? Yes
Experience has nothing to do with how someone handles an emergency situation. More to the point depending on whether a person is reactive or responsive is what matters because it is relative to the way he (or she) would most likely to deal with emergency situations.
A reactive person quickly angers or panics, often without thinking things through makes hasty decisions that exacerbate the situation to the point of spiraling out of control -- perhaps unintended nevertheless avoidable consequences.
In contrast a responsive individual thinks before taking action. A measured response commensurate with the situation is less likely to make a bad situation, worse.
Without reacting, but responding to unexpected circumstances Obama has shown he thinks quickly on his feet. That gives me confidence.
Granted Obama will not sit on his laurels while his opponents run him over, but by the same token he does not seek to make either opponent utterly unelectable by destroying them. That says a lot about his character.
Obama's sharp political acumen peppered with wit and humour give him an advantage neither of his opponents have. He will withstand the republican attack machine. That I have no doubt about.
I believe in this man. I trust him and I like him. Obama appeals to voters because he is genuine, sincere, authentic and consistent. Nothing to date gives me reason to believe otherwise. I very well may be disappointed down the line, I understand and I accept that.
Obama cannot fix our lives, but what he can do is make government work again, restore our civil rights, improve international relations and promote social justice.
He can put policies in place that give the people opportunities to attain something better.
That restores hope.
March 28, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, I'm gladd Andreeson understands the difference between "lecturer" and "professor".
Second, the answer about "I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them" is obscenely cocky for a guy who at that point had 2 years on the national level.
Third, the comments on family in Kenya and his 4 years in Indonesia are simply dumb. Sorry, scratch that. Extremely dumb. There are a million Army brats whose foreign experience is more extensive than Obama's. There are probably 5 million Latino immigrants with much more extensive foreign experience than Obama's. Let's look at Madeleine Albright as a Czech woman born in Belgrade, escaped to London, exiled to the US, studied in Denver and Switzerland, extensively traveled and knowledgeable about the world. All of these have tons of relatives abroad. So what?
Fourth, the comment about post-boomer is simply dumb. Kinda like "our own Woodstock". Someone from Time Magazine apparently has told us where generations are separated, or we take our cues from turns in demographic curves, and now we need to re-invent ourselves, get "one of us" (a fellow demographic trender) to feel comfortable (and toss those who came before under the wheelchair, even if they're only 50 or so).
Fifth, Obama's good at campaigning. Whether he's good at functioning like an administrator is anyone's guess. Organization and team building work for him. I haven't seen anything showing that his rapid response skills are great. Like Bush he'll have the disadvantage of making decisions on foreign policy he doesn't understand that well and relying on advisers. If he has good advisers and works with them well (including distrusting them at the right times) he can succeed. How will he deal with Republicans and the fickle press? Unsure. He's a bit churlish and he hasn't been pricked that hard yet. (I liked Jon Stewart's comment - "He seems like he'd make kind of a dicky boyfriend".
March 28, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, it is always important consider the alternative: Someone who will make foreign policy decisions and think that she knows what she's doing without listening to anyone. As for rapid response, I'm still waiting for her to respond on Iraq. The phone rang six years ago. While you may perhaps be justified in reserving doubts about how he will function as an administrator in the Oval Office, we can be sure how Clinton will perform in this capacity: She won't.
I'm really not surprised that Andreesen's comments were lost on you.
March 28, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Little Barry Had a Speech" - one of my favorite films next to "Horton Hears a Who" and "The Mouse That Roared".
March 28, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well two of my favorite fairy tales are Hillary Clinton and the Toughness That Wasn't and Hillary Clinton and the Illusion of Policy Mastery.
See, it's easy.. when you know how. Just like Hillary Clinton's bogus claims, simply repeating your cute little quip about "just a speech" will never, ever make it true. But keep trying. It's kind of fun to watch.
March 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happy to keep you happy.
Now click your heels together and rant, "Just Give Up, Just Give Up."
March 28, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the answer about "I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them" is obscenely cocky for a guy who at that point had 2 years on the national level."
Desidero, there are such things as brilliance, self-education, and intellectual honesty. In my opinion, so-called "foreign policy expertise" Washington style is little more than BS tailored to support corporate and political interests. Obama is a genuine intellectual who seeks truths. Of course he is also a politician. You can't be a politician without being a politician, but at least Barack tries to work as close to the truth as possible.
March 28, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah yeah yeah, he walks on water and makes a great omelet to boot. Learned Indonesian fluently at 6, wrote great essays in Kindergarten, etc.
What are Obama's great accomplishments? Head of Harvard Law Review, fine. Magna Cum Laude in Harvard Law, only about 50 of those a year. What else? Oh, registered 125,000 new voters in Chicago. Good. But the genuine intellectual who seeks truths and couldn't convene his sub-committee for 1 meeting - guess the EU isn't that important this year. So busy with his first 2 years in the US Senate that he managed to write a second book in his spare time. Seeks truths but didn't notice the kind of speech his pastor used (didn't he grow up in a *white* household?). How many stories did he give on Rezko? At first barely remembered him, then remembered he'd had him by to appraise a lot, etc., etc.
March 28, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Desi, wrong again. Children are able to pick up new language amazingly fast, adults somewhat slower. But for anyone who has spent a week or more abroad, it's not that hard to learn the local language. Spend a month in Paris and you'll be conversational enough to order in rstaraunts and cafes, shop in stores, etc. Unfortunately, though, the longer you visit the great state of Denial, the inverse is true, you lose your ability to speak in a clear and reasoned manner.
March 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi - By that warped analysis, I guess Hillary's great accomlishments have been (1) not killing Bill when she found for the unpteenth time that he had been lying to her about his extramarital sexlife, and was getting blown in the oval office while she was upstairs helping Chelsea with her homework, and (2) her managing to avoid getting hit by sniper fire when she was running from the C-17 in Tuzla. Makes you wonder why, if she thinks that an hour of incendiary rhetoric from Dr. Wright (when weighed against an otherwise illustrous 35 year career epitomized by Dr. Wright's good deeds and leadership in S. Chicago, and the good works of the Church itself within that community) should have been enough to make Obama leave his Church, does she not think that 10-20 hours of being fellated and god-knows-what-else from an array of trashy women, followed by public lies and humilations of her (when weighed against a lifetime of good deeds and impressive leadership as President) wasn't enought to make her leave her marriage. For those of us who gladly gave them the benefit of that doubt, you cannot imagine how disappointing it is to see her lash out at Obama in such a way, for her personal political gain. Shameful. He may not walk on water, but at least he doesn't feed off the bottom of the river.
March 28, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There are a million Army brats whose foreign experience is more extensive than Obama's."
Des, if you spent a few hours reading Barack's writings rather than constantly trying to cut him down with your posts, you would either appreciate his unusual qualities or at least have a basis for intelligent critique, if you are capable of that.
"How will he deal with Republicans and the fickle press?" He will make them look like the petty fools they are, by being reasonable and rational.
March 28, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me, I've read quite enough, even managing to stay awake. And for his followers, I see parallels with Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now:
Hey, man, you don't talk to the Colonel. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll... uh... well, you'll say "hello" to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you. He won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say, "do you know that 'if' is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you"... I mean I'm no, I can't... I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's... he's a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas...
March 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your posts have been all over the map. You have stated that you're not a Republican by referencing a quote from Bruce Willis. Willis suggested he was not a Republicanin the article. In real life, Willis has supported and voted for Republicans. There is no Democratic support on record for Mr Willis.
The developer of Netscape offered his observations of Obama. A blogger made a clear statement that there will be times when disagreements with an Obama decision will happen. Neither seem like blind faith followers. You respond with another Hollywood reference, this time a movie. Cult behavior is suggested by calling Obama supporters mere followers.
Since Obama has obvious faults in your eyes, and Obama has us all under a spell, can you tell us the positives that you find in McCain or Clinton?
March 28, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Desidero is really Ben Stein.
March 28, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doubtful. Ben Stein has consistently exhibited the ability to make rational arguments.
March 28, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd agree, except on the subject of evolution. On that subject he seems to have gone off the deep end..
March 28, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I'd never really been exposed to his religious views. Yeah, this is pretty batty. But at least he's constrained it to one subject instead of making it his modus operandi.
March 28, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Desi, wrong again:
The University of Chicago released a statement clarifying Obama's status at the university. He is a senior lecturer and has cited that he is a constitutional law professor on the trail. That's something that has caused some criticism and allegations of exaggeration. It's something the Clinton campaign has pushed as well in conference calls with reporters in the past week.
Here's the statement:
"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx
March 28, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. He did. I wish Lalo35 would do the same. I've spent hours reading Hillary's policies. I've listened to her speeches, townhalls (actually, her town hall in New Hampshire is where I first heard her use the fear card. And I got afraid). I've factored that in when I look at her campaign, her personal statements, her kitchen sink strategy, manipulation, endorsement of John McCain over another good democrat, and many other things. Because I'm a democrat, I'm open minded and I let truth lead me.
Anyone who says Obama is an empty suit has done no homework. Has not looked with an open mind at his detailed policies, Blueprint for Change, and has of course dismissed his many personal gifts.
There's a lot of acrimony around on both sides. But I implore everyone to do their homework. Anyone who has cannot conclude that Barack Obama is an empty suit.
March 28, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
There have been newspaper stories in recent years about how spectacularly uninformed many members of Congress are. I don't think Obama meant he was more knowledgeable than Joe Biden. I think he meant many of these people show up and posture and don't do their homework. If the statement was worded as cocky (and I certainly can see that), it's because he's so unscripted and unpackaged in settings like that.
Makes him more human. Let's stop parsing every word of everyone -- unless the remarks are clearly scripted. Then we can question intent.
March 28, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting to hear Hillary address civil liberties and restoration of the Constitution. I'm waiting.......
Also as an aside, kudos to Obama for talking straight talk about regulation yesterday. Hillary and McCain will tear it apart -- but frankly, I've been waiting for a democrat to talk about restoring common sense regulation to this out of control government that Bush (and Clinton, and Bush 1 and Reagan) gave us. Of course Obama tied it together in a common sense narrative.
He exceeds my expectations once again.
March 28, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing to get out of the way at the getgo. Obama's education may or may not reflect any great intellectual abilities. Transferring to Columbia from a fourth tier school is not so hard if you're black and have a B average. And I know that the threshold for HLS for black applicants is way, way lower than for regular applicants. and membership on the HLR for black students is not based on grades. And finally, President of the HLR is not an editorial position, it is a elected and essentially political position. I am not impressed at at with any of Obama's "accomplishments."
March 28, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You question his education with NO evidence to the contrary that his grades were poor.
We do know, however, that he did pass the BAR the first time he tried.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010006
March 28, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have some pretty fantastic accomplishments of your own, if you find Obama's less than impressive. Affirmative action exists, but that doesn't mean that black students are not qualified for admission without it. Obama might have gotten into Harvard as you describe, but once he was there, he still had to compete with the other student. He graduated Magna Cum Laude, was elected the first AA President of the HLR, and passed the bar exam on the first try.
I find that I am increasingly defending Obama from these types of crazy comments. If you prefer another candidate fine. Saying Obama's accomplishments aren't impressive is just ridiculous, and it is obvious that isn't true.
I recognize that John McCain was a brave soldier and that he admirably endured 5 years of being a POW. That is an impressive accomplishment. No way I would vote for him, but I won't say that he isn't impressive.
March 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an idiot. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. And becoming a member of Harvard Law Review, either through grading on or writing on (I don't know how Obama made it) is a blind process; there is no advantage given to black students.
March 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concise, applicable.
March 28, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to go back to what Andreeson did about donating to the Romney campaign. Should we be all that impressed by what Andreeson says about a candidate when he supports a conservative Republican whose politics are aligned with a flip-flopping, say anything panderer, religious rightist, warmonger? For guys like Andreeson, donations buy him access and influence, but his choice of Romney speaks to his lack of judgement that undermines why the hell we should bother listening to him or any other billionaire frankly on political candidates.
March 28, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, calls Obama “one of the two most talented students I’ve had in 37 years in teaching."'
-from The Washingtonian, Nov 1, 2006
vs.
Milla J.
(you are not THE Milla J. are you??????)
March 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
that is very diplomatic. It leaves it open that any one of his other students could think they might be the other.
March 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's age is important to many young people coming into politics. These new groups can create a new majority for Democrats that doesn't depend so heavily upon lower income whites who will never really support a non-white candidate.
March 28, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary failed the Bar, that's quite an indication of anyone USA as opposed to a President.
March 28, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for him hoping that everything you have said might be true, to find out it is takes away all doubt. More & more seem to be having the same feelings. Thank you.
March 28, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a baby boomer who recently changed careers to become an attorney so I could turn my passion for human rights and civil rightsa into a career.
I must say that Andreenen's article was telling. I have expressed this before-my generation had its chance-we failed by allowing the Right Wing to gather the power.
I say it's time to let the X'ers have their shot. I am 100% behind Obama. He is clearly the best candidate we have had since Booby Kennedy.
I have one more bar exam which happens in July, and after that I will use every waking moment to help Barack Obama get into the White House. I love everyone's enthusiasm-let's keep singing the praises of Obama and let Hillary self destruct. She doesn't need our help, and by staying focused on "Yes We Can' we will bring more people over to Obama by reflecting his clear vision and inspiration.
Go Obama 2008 !!!
March 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tragic typo!
March 28, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a term of endearment. Or an attempt to give it a Massachusetts accent.
March 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I LOVE that line!
"....no, NO, NO!!! That's Bob...with one 'O'!
:-D
March 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Milla J writes: "And I know that the threshold for HLS for black applicants is way, way lower than for regular applicants." 1) How do YOU know this? Are you part of HLS's application review board? 2) Actually, according to the Supreme Court's own requirements on affirmative action policies at universities (see Grutter v. Bolinger and Gratz v. Bolinger), there may NOT be seperate standards based on race; race can only be ONE factor considered in admitting (such as athlete status, regional representation, legacy status), when all else (i.e. grades and test scores) meet across-the-board academic standards. 3) So, it looks like the black guy got in because he was SMART, not because he is BLACK. 4) Can you clarify what you mean by "regular applicants"? Are black people not "regular applicants"? Milla J, are you another one of those racist HRC supporters? Just give it up; Obama is a brilliant man, who just happens to be back.
March 28, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I don't think D.W. Griffith Milla J is a Clinton supporter either, just a plain ol' troll, if you look at all the rubbish posted.
March 28, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would make a great op ed in the newspapers!
March 28, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Milla wrote, "the threshold for HLS for black applicants is way, way lower than for regular applicants."
Because, ya know, black people aren't like us regular people and all. See, they have black skin and all. Nothing regular about that. Ooooh. Wonder why they let them into Harvard at all. Wonder why they let them be elected editor of the Law Review, or successful community organisers, or respected law Professors (nah, they're prob'ly just regular old constitutional law LECturers,anway), or State Senators. Reckon they've got an affirmative action program in that US Senate to keep us regular folks out, too.
Here endeth the sarcasm.
And with that, I am officially done talking to you. Have a nice day.
March 28, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Desidero says:
Second, the answer about "I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them" is obscenely cocky for a guy who at that point had 2 years on the national level.
**Not cocky when you consider that Hillary PRAISES John McCain's foreign policy expertise. McCain? OMG. At least with Obama we will not have months of "tuzla" thrown at us. How do you defend THAT kind of "foreign policy" experience?
March 28, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Ms. Hillary stands to have a candidate she can slap around from here to Sunday because he supported/created the surge.
Obama will have to live with "Hussein's no danger" so will be recouping that and his preacher's and wife's comments.
March 28, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I saw him speak in 2006, and I think he can be a very good President - for most of the reasons Mr. Andressen articulated. If he is our nominee, I will have no qualms about working hard for his election.
However, I think that Sen. Clinton will be an even better President, which is why I am working for her to be the nominee.
March 28, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Milla.
Actually, President of the Law Review at ANY law school is a big deal-definitely always goes to one of top students-Harvard all the more so.
And Lawrence Tribe is THE leading Constitutional scholar on the left-he said Obama was one of the two best students he had in 37 years!
I understand why you want to support Clinton-but unless both sides get our facts straight we will just contribute to the general lack of knowledge that is so prevalent in the U.S. today. Lest we become like the people who contributed to TWO Bush Presidencies, let us all be well informed.
To graduate magna cum laude and President of the Law Review at Harvard puts Obama in the top 10 of the entire class of gradutaing law students throughout the entire U.S. And even if you do not like Obama, any objective, realistic assessment of him has to yield the inevitable conclusion that he is very bright.
And compare his campaign to everyone elses! There is overwhelming evidence how good he is. In fact, if he was less astute Hillary would not be behind him in every category right now. Marc Andreesen wrote an article posted earlier today in TPM that when he interviewed OBama before the campaign in January 2007 he posed the question:
"We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive -- as a manager and leader of people?"
"He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action."
Pretty astute by any standard!
March 28, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment